Madison365 columnist Mike Martez Johnson wrote an excellent piece On Morals, On Class, On Reparations in Madison365 recently criticizing author Ta-Nehisi Coates about his view on reparations and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ failure to support the call for them. Johnson’s editorial raises some good points, and at times misses the point that Coates was making.
In a conversation with a friend, Savion Castro, he made an excellent point and one that Coates has made many times: “Reparations aren’t meant to address the needs of black workers, reparations is to atone for plunder.”
Coates has been responding to many criticisms laid at his feet, far better than I could. And this piece is about far more than a response, but I will quickly add a few thoughts; although they are not all my thoughts on his response.
Reparations indeed are to make up for historical and present-day plunder. Coates by no means suggests that this will solve white supremacy in America, but argues that this is a major step in doing so. Some have rightfully stated that this misses out on the very real class divide in black America. But, for those that point that out, I have not seen any talk about the very real differences between middle-class blacks and middle-class whites. And the very real differences between poor whites and poor blacks.
Black poverty differs from white poverty, and when this nation has used “colorblind” or “lift all boats” policies, those policies have not closed that divide. Poor black Americans live in concentrated poverty at a far higher rate than poor whites.
In one of Coates’ responses he quotes sociologist Robert Sampson who found that:
“….racial differences in neighborhood exposure to poverty are so strong that even high-income blacks are exposed to greater neighborhood poverty than low-income whites. For example, non-poor blacks in Chicago live in neighborhoods that are nearly 30 percent in poverty—traditionally the definition of “concentrated poverty” areas—whereas poor whites lives in neighborhoods with 15 percent poverty, about the national average”
Coates also fully understands, as many that support reparations do, that there still is a large class divide and that more must be done to end white supremacy in America. But white supremacy goes far beyond just economics and class divides.
When someone says, “anti-black racism is not the principal determinant of material conditions and economic mobility for many African Americans,” they are flat-out wrong. There is zero argument to be made in support of this statement. This statement ignores the black codes, redlining, current lending practices, hiring practices, incarceration and sentencing rates, dog-whistle politics, and far more.
Unification among the working classes will be impossible without defeating white supremacy, and yet unification among working classes must happen to defeat white supremacy.
Yes, universal economic policies will help black Americans, as they have in the past, but there is zero evidence that they will address disparities between black and white Americans. And to say, “Next time it will be different” is not learning from the past.
There are larger issues with Bernie at hand when it comes to race, especially how he talks about a “political revolution” and how he presents himself as someone with a radical agenda. And then defends his stance against reparations saying they are not “pragmatic” (this is the first time he’s labeled himself as such) or that they are too “divisive” when he is running on being divisive.
This is very problematic.
“Unification among the working classes will be impossible without defeating white supremacy, and yet unification among working classes must happen to defeat white supremacy.”
We must make sure that we use an intersectional lens when looking at these issues. Yes, a race lens isn’t enough, but neither is just a class lens. And Coates falls too much into a race lens, and even a capitalist lens. He has not indicated that he is anything but a capitalist, and that can be criticized, rightfully.
But so can socialism, an economic lens developed without a race lens. And because of that, it is inadequate in addressing the racial disparities in this country.
While we may not agree on everything, this is an important intellectual conversation to be having at this point in time. It’s important to note that it has been going on far, far longer than me, Mike, Ta-Nehisi, or even Bernie has been alive. It’s an old conversation in a legacy of black intellectuals searching ways to make the American Negro free.
There is a perception that black Americans can’t disagree, or that we must be unified on all fronts. This is something that is an internal discussion, too. In one sense, it is important for us to look unified as we are attacked on all fronts. But at the same time, there is a consciousness that we don’t all see things the same way and that these conversations are important to our liberation.
Intellectual conversations around racism and white supremacy are needed; they evolve even the best of minds. The most publicly celebrated minds in Dr. King and Malcolm X did not stay stagnant in their analysis, they kept evolving. And the King and X we see late in their lives were very different than earlier versions. You had both of them taking up visions seen through much more of an economic lens, which also had strong racial intersections. Both were anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. King, near the time of his murder, mentioned that he thought he was wrong with integration and that he then thought we integrated into a burning house.
These two are of the most public examples, but there was a long line before, from W.E.B Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, Assata Shakur, Bayard Rustin, Charles Hamilton Houston, Angela Davis, to Madison’s own Gloria Ladson-Billings, and too many more names.
All black intellectuals have their own independent thoughts, we do not move in lock-step, and that is important. I enjoy the discussion between Mike and I; I enjoy my discussions with UW-Madison student Savion Castro (another budding intellectual, keep your eyes open for him Madison); and my discussions with my colleagues in Young Gifted and Black (YGB), and many more. These discussions/conversations (that can get heated) do not show weakness; they show strength. They build us up, they build our analysis, even if we don’t see eye to eye. These conversations, as intense as they are sometimes, are needed for us to obtain the liberation of the American Negro.
In the black community it is imperative that we not only not shy away, but escalate, those conversations where we disagree.
Like on reparations.
